Stylised Facts About SMEs_Humberto_LOPEZ-1-2

8/6/2019 Stylised Facts About SMEs_Humberto_LOPEZ-1-2

1/11

1/11

Stylised Facts about SMEs Place in Job Creation in Manufacturing Sector: A European Comparison

Version: 14/04/2011

Humberto Lpez Rizzo

University of Paris 1 Panthon [email protected]

Abstract

The aim of this work is to widen and clarify the current debate on the importance attached to Smalland Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), with their relevant contribution to job creation in themanufacturing sector. For this issue, the OECDs database STAN, Structural Analysis Database, isused. The period of analysis is from 1999 to 2007, covering twelve European countries: Austria,Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden andthe United Kingdom. In the present work, an SME is considered, as defined by the EuropeanCommission and the OECD, as a firm with less than 250 employees.

The share of the SMEs in the manufacturing employment ranges from 48% to 71% depending on thecountry and the division. Moreover, a typology of the characteristics of the SMEs across the countriesis presented. In countries of south Europe (Spain, Italy and Portugal), SMEs provide 7 of each 10jobs. Furthermore, their mean size is lower than the average of the other countries. The coefficient ofcorrelation of Pearson shows that there is a low negative correlation between the firm size and itsshare in the manufacturing employment.

Likewise, the Portuguese SMEs show underperforming results for some variables. On the other hand,the Germanic SMEs (Austria and Germany) are more robust in size and better performing in thecreation of the mean value-added. The United Kingdom's SMEs destroy half a million jobs and thelarge ones almost 700 thousand. The Spanish and Swedish SMEs created 40,000 jobs over thatperiod.

There is a negative SME employment growth rate in 11 manufacturing divisions, while another 12divisions show a low positive growth rate, and one division had a growth rate over the period in theorder of 134%. This is division 37: Recuperation. This division shows positive SME employmentgrowth rate for all the countries.

Keywords: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs); Manufacturing Industry; Employment;Comparative Studies of Countries;

JEL Classification: L11; L6; J21; O57;

1. Introduction

Thirty years ago, economists began to show interest in the small business. This interest was mainlyinspired by the conclusions of the works by David Birch in the years 1979 and 1981. The findings ofBirch pointed out the fact that small businesses are the economic structure that creates more net jobsvis--vis the large enterprises. Some works then confirmed the early findings of Birch, and otherscriticised his results.

The aim of the present work is precisely to widen and clarify the current debate on the importanceattached to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), with their relevant contribution to jobcreation in the manufacturing sector. The importance of SMEs is a current issue worldwide, becausethey are taking a relevant position, not only in the political and economic discourse, but also in theimplementation of certain programmes. The recent adoption of the Small Business Act (SBA) forEurope in June 2008 is an illustration of this issue.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/11

2/11

In the present study, we consider an SME, as defined by the European Commission and the OECD in2003, as a firm with less than 250 employees. The sector of interest is the manufacturing industry aswell as all its divisions (Divisions 15 to 37 considering the classification ISIC Rev. 3). The database isobtained from STAN, Structural Analysis Database, at the OECD. To crunch and squeeze the data toextract the essence of it is positively one main goal of this work. The information available ismetadata from 1999 to 2007, and for this project, twelve European countries are considered: Austria,

Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden andthe United Kingdom.

In this multi-purpose research, we initially present the descriptive statistics where we may find that a48% to 71% share of the jobs in the manufacturing is provided by SMEs. Then, in countries such asSpain, Italy and Portugal, SMEs provide 7 of each 10 jobs. The share of SMEs in job creation variesacross the countries and across sectors. Moreover, a typology of the characteristics of the SMEsacross the countries is presented, considering variables such as the value-added turnover level andthe production level. This first examination output the similarities and disparities between thecountries as well as between the manufacturing divisions, such as the disparities in performanceamong the south European SMEs (Italy, Spain and Portugal) and the Germanic SMEs (Germany andAustria).

The second objective is to perform a comparative analysis of employment creation between SMEsand LEs, across the countries and the manufacturing divisions. That is a more detailed analysiscarried out. We can stress the fact that the SMEs in the United Kingdom destroy 500,000 jobs, whilethe LEs close about 700,000 jobs. On the other hand, the Spanish SMEs create 40,000 jobs and thelarge ones provide 20,000. All those previous analyses will let us find out what the best performingSMEs across the countries and the manufacturing divisions are. The manufacturing division whereSMEs report the highest employment rate is the S37: Recuperation, with a growth rate from 1999 to2007 in the order of 134% (average). As a matter of fact, these previous analyses will also let usdetermine the possible explications of the causes as to why some SMEs perform better than others.For this, finally we propose the analysis of the coefficient of correlation of Pearson. For all SMEs, thevalue-added seems, overall, to be the variable that better explains their mean size.

2. Literature review

Since the conclusions of American researcher David Birch in the late 1970s-early 1980s, the numberof works focusing on small businesses in job creation has multiplied notably. The main finding of Birch(1981) was that small businesses (those with less than 20 people) created 80% of the new jobs in theUnited States during the period 1978-1981. At the time this outcome was taken with scepticism, butyears later it was the OECD (1985) which subsequently corroborated the findings of Birch,considering, in turn, that job creation was more important in small establishments than in smallbusiness.

The evidence presented by Birch was contested by Davis (1992) and later by Harrison (1994). Bothauthors criticised the current sample and the methodology he used. An additional argument raised bythe authors was the fact that Birch did not take into account, in his analysis, the subcontracting factor

(coming from large to small firms) as a causal factor of the increasing job creation. Another authorwho extends Harrisons intuition is Boccara (1998) who believes that most of the jobs created bySMEs are nothing more than an optical effect induced precisely because the SMEs that generatethese jobs are owned or controlled by an industry group. Therefore, these jobs can be attributed to agroup effect. Another research work that questions the importance of small businesses in job creationis this of Johnson (1989) who pointed out the decreasing net rates in job creation of the Englishmanufacturing small businesses during the period 1979-1985. However, Doi and Cowling (1998)studied the manufacturing sector of the UK for the period 1976-1991, but they found out that theSMEs increased their contribution to employment from 25% to 34.5%.

Other authors subsequently approved the thesis that small structures are the major source of jobcreation vis--vis the larger structures. J. Wagner (1995) found that the German SMEs (with up to 249employees) showed higher net rates of job creation compared to those of the LEs in the

manufacturing sector during the period 1978-1993. Broerman and Gautier (1997) corroborated thesefindings for the Dutch firms (with 10-99 people) in the manufacturing industry during the period 1978-


3/11

3/11

1991. In addition, Baldwin (1998) and Picot and Dupuy (1998) observed that small firms (with lessthan 100 employees) achieved higher net rates of job creation compared to large ones in theCanadian manufacturing sector. Likewise, Mouy (1998) analysed the French manufacturing industryfor the period 1984-1995, and found out the same results as the previous authors. This was this forfirms with fewer than 50 employees.

The OECD presented a report in 1996 and 2005 where it emphasised the importance of SMEs in theshare of employment, which reached up to 75% in countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal (OECD1996, OECD 2005). [For a summary of various studies published by the OECD in conjunction withother authors, see Schereyer (1996); Segenberger, Loveman and Piore (1990); Storey and Johnson(1987)].

D. Audretsch (2002) surveyed the American industry for the period 1990-1995, and found out thatsmall firms (with 20-499 employees) were those that contributed the larger net rate of job creationcompared to large firms. For their part, the small firms contributed a rate of net job creation of 0.57%,and the large firms (with more than 500 employees) reported a negative rate of job creation of -8.57%.

Recently, Lopez-Garcia et al. (2009) studied the Spanish economy for the period 1996-2003. The

authors provided evidence that small firms (those with less than 20 people) created more than 60% ofthe net jobs. They pointed that the industrial small firms contributed 20% of the total jobs in themanufacturing sector.

3. Database and descriptive statistics

The Database

The database used in this article is STAN, Structural Analysis Database, which is obtained from theOECD website. The manufacturing sector is the object of analysis, and so are all the divisions itinvolves. The data is available only as metadata (i.e. the variables presented reflect the performance

of the overall SMEs). An SME is considered here as a firm that has up to 249 employees, with thisbeing the recent definition accepted by the European Commission and the OECD in 2003 (Document2003/361/EC). Therefore, all large enterprises (LEs) are those with more than 249 employees.

The present work is a study of the period between 1999 and 2007, covering twelve Europeancountries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, theNetherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The divisions taken into consideration in this work are 15 to 37 considering the two-digit sectors fromthe Classification ISIC Rev. 3:

(15) Manufacture of food products and beverages(16) Manufacture of tobacco products

(17) Manufacture of textiles(18) Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur(19) Tanning and dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage, handbags, saddlery, harness andfootwear(20) Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except for furniture; manufacture ofarticles of straw and plaiting materials(21) Manufacture of paper and paper products(22) Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media(23) Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel(24) Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products(25) Manufacture of rubber and plastic products(26) Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products(27) Manufacture of basic metals

(28) Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except for machinery and equipment(29) Manufacture of machinery and equipment NEC (not elsewhere classified)


4/11

4/11

(30) Manufacture of office, accounting and computing machinery(31) Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus NEC(32) Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus(33) Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks(34) Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers(35) Manufacture of other transport equipment

(36) Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing NEC(37) Recycling

Limitations of the database

This data is pertinent to getting the big picture of the situation of SMEs in employment in themanufacturing sector. But considering the aggregate nature of the data (not at a firm level), thisdatabase does not allow us to know exactly if the firm is independent or subsidiary of another one.Nor does it allow us to know if the firm is subcontracted by another one. Therefore, we cannot testvarious hypotheses. In fact, Ayyagari et al. (2007) see difficult to carry out a dynamic interpretation ofthe SMEs' performance from this kind of data, and Storey (1982) notes the difficulty to test divershypothesis about small businesses because the lack of statistics restrains performing this. So, we will

content ourselves with a general analysis of the performance of SMEs.

Descriptive statistics

The demography of the manufacturing sector of all countries shows that from 90% to 98% of the firmsare SMEs, which means that less than 2% of the firms on the market are large ones. It is important tonote that these percentages correspond to the mean value of the periods analysed.

Figure 1 illustrates the share of SMEs in employment in the manufacturing; this is an average of theperiod 1999-2007. Looking at the job distribution on the mentioned graph, we note that significantdifferences exist between countries.

Figure 1: Average share of SMEs in the manufacturing employment during 1999-2007.

We can note that the SMEs in the south European countries make a higher contribution toemployment than the rest of the nations. In short, in these countries almost 7 of every 10 jobs areprovided by an SME. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, Finland and France, the SMEscontribute only to 5 of every 10 jobs. In order to have a clearer picture of the importance of SMEs injob creation across the manufacturing divisions, we consider pertinent to comment on more preciselythis point on the following paragraphs.


5/11

5/11

Table 1: Share of employment provided by SMEs across the manufacturing divisions.

There are many cases to point out on Table 1. However, we will only focus on highlighting three:

First, the SMEs' contribution to employment in some sectors varies widely across the countries. Forexample, in the S30, the mean share of SMEs in employment of all countries is 62%. That means that62% of the jobs in this sector are supplied by SMEs. But that is not the case for France (28%) nor

Germany (27%), nor the Netherlands (24%).

Second, the opposite case is presented in the S23 where on average, most jobs are provided by LEs,but in Denmark about 9 of every 10 jobs are created by SMEs.

Third, in the S37, for most countries, SMEs are the entirely job providers, but in the UK this is onlytrue for 81% of these jobs.

We can say in a nutshell that there is heterogeneity; the importance of SMEs in jobs creation variesacross the divers manufacturing divisions as well as within the countries [as Parker (2001) stressed].We may affirm that there are different market characteristics and, therefore, firms have differentqualities and scope. Likewise, the average size across countries varies. For the overall manufacturingsector, we can note that the smaller SMEs are the Swedish and Italian with a mean workforce size of

10 people, then the Finnish with 11, the Portuguese with 12, the Spanish with 13, the French with 14,the English with 15, then the Danish and Belgian with 16, the Dutch with 18, the Austrian with 20, andfinally the German with 23 employees. There is a notable difference between the mean sizes of SMEsamong countries. This difference is just as evident within the different manufacturing divisions.

Table 2: Mean size of the SME across the manufacturing divisions.

From Table 2, we can first observe that there is a notorious difference between the mean size of thesmaller SMEs, that is 7 employees (from the S18 and the S36), compared to the ones with the largersize, that is 38 employees (from the S16). A second element to note is the significant size of theGerman SMEs across the manufacturing divisions; these SMEs show a larger size with respect to themean size of the sector. The last point to stress is that, the larger the mean size of the SMEs is thelower the contribution to employment will be in a sector. Calculating the coefficient of correlation ofPearson between the SME's mean size and the SME's share of employment, we obtain a coefficient

of -0,341 (significant at the 0,01 level). This coefficient indicates a moderate negative correlationbetween these two variables behaving these in the sense that we just posed.


6/11

6/11

The following table shows the percentages of participation of SMEs in the demographics of themanufacturing, turnover and production respectively. The objective of presenting these variables is tohave a first picture on the weight that these firms have within the manufacturing sector. We canrealize the main importance that SMEs in countries, such as like Portugal, Spain and Italy, have. Onthe other hand, we note a lower weight of SMEs in the value-added, the turnover and production in

countries such as Austria, France or Germany. To get a clearer picture about the divergence of theSMEs' characteristics across countries, a country typology is carried out in the following point.

Table 3: Share of SMEs in the overall manufacturing Demography, Value-Added, Turnover andProduction.

4. A typology of the European manufacturing SMEs

The fact of proposing a typology of SMEs involves the use of different variables that could representparsimoniously the characteristics of the mean firm. For this work, we build a typology making use ofthe following variables: the mean size of the firm, the mean value-added, the mean turnover level, and

the mean production level. The following table presents the mean values of the four variables alreadymentioned.

Table 4:Averages SMEs values ofsome indicators of economic performance.

Basic interpretation: A mean manufacturing Swedish SME has 10 employees, and it creates on avalue-added of 500,000 Euros, a turnover level of 1.84 million Euros and a production level of 1.73million Euros. We may note that these statistics are expressed in real terms; these were deflated bythe CPI.

A first point to note on the table above is the fact that the German SMEs present higher values for thefour coefficients. Not only are the German SMEs bigger in size, but also they perform better incomparison with the SMEs of the other nations. On the other hand, we find that the Portuguese SMEshave a lower size and lower performance compared with the other countries.

We may note that the average turnover is close to the average production; computing the coefficientof partial correlation (Pearson), we find that these coefficients are highly correlated. The value of the

correlation is in the order of 0,98, meaning that both variables have a high positive correlation (quiteclose from the perfect correlation value of 1,00).


7/11

7/11

In order to get the picture of the relationship between those variables and the same for thecharacteristics of the firms, I propose the next two charts.

Figure 2: Average SME's size (persons) and Figure 3: Average SME's size (persons) andAverage SME's value-added (per firm) Average SME's value-added (per firm)

We may note in both Figures the performance of the German SMEs; that is the larger the size, thehigher the value-added, and the same is for the turnover level. On the other hand, other nations showa lower size in its SMEs and so lower values on the indicators of performance of countries such asItaly, Sweden and Finland. For these Figures, we can say in short that the south European countriesas well as the Nordic ones show the lesser performance on the mentioned coefficients.

5. The place of SMEs in the manufacturing employment

During the period of study, there was greater destruction of jobs than creation. Both SMEs and largefirms destroyed more jobs than they created. Even so, large firms were those which destroyed thelarger number of jobs. In short, SMEs destroyed about 950,000 jobs, while large ones destroyedalmost one million and four hundred thousand jobs. Table 5 summarizes the creation-destructionacross the countries.

Table 5: Balance of the job creation-destruction in the manufacturing sector for SMEs and LEs.

However, if we look closer at the performance of SMEs from different countries, we will find that the

creation and the job destruction occur with different magnitudes. For example, the SMEs of the UnitedKingdom destroyed nearly half a million jobs, the French ones destroyed almost a quarter of a million


8/11

8/11

jobs. On the other hand, SMEs in countries such as Spain or Sweden created about 40,000 jobs. Fortheir part, the German SMEs destroyed barely 5,000 jobs. Turning our sight to the right side of thetable, we see that large firms have higher job destruction than the SMEs. We may note thedestruction of nearly 700,000 jobs in the English LEs, 250,000 jobs in the German LEs, and 150,000jobs in the French LEs. If we consider the percentage changes, we can see that in the UK, more thanone-fifth of the jobs in SMEs disappear, and one-third of those in large enterprises. Likewise, the

Portuguese large enterprises remove one-third of the jobs in the sector.

In short, during the period 1999-2007, manufacturing SMEs destroyed fewer jobs than the large onesdid. In countries such as Finland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, SMEs are net job creators. Onthe other hand, in Austria and Spain, large firms are presented as net job creators.

One question that could arise is about the percentage of the jobs created by new firms entering themarket among those jobs created by manufacturing SMEs. To address this dilemma, the followingFigures show the evolution (%) in the number of new SMEs entering the market, measuring at thesame time the evolution of the SMEs manufacturing employment. In parallel, a similar Figure ispresented, but in this case for the LEs; this in order to perform a comparative analysis between thetwo structures.

Figure 4: Annual evolution in the number of firms Figure 5: Annual evolution in the number offirms and jobs in the SMEs and jobs in the LEs.

In the Figure 4, we observe that, the countries where the number of firms increases at the same timeas the number of jobs does are the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain. On the other hand, Finlandreduces the number of firms, but increases the number of jobs. Again, we note the fact that in theUnited Kingdom there is a decline in the number of firms and jobs. The German SMEs have marginaldestruction of jobs and a reduction of almost 2% in the number of firms.

If we turn to the Figure 5, we note that, on average, for most of the countries during the period 1999-2007, the number of large firms as well as the employees disappeared. The exception to this last factis found in countries such as Sweden, Spain and Austria, where the number of large firms and theamount of jobs increase marginally; that is a rise in less than a half percentage point. The Italian LEsincrease their number marginally, but this is accompanied by a decrease in the number of jobs ofnearly half a point.


9/11

9/11

What about the employment changes across the divers manufacturing divisions?

The next table summarizes the evolution in the SMEs' employment level from 1999 to 2007. We canstress the fact that in 11 divisions (from a total of 23), there is a declining tendency; especially in theS17-19 and the S36 [with a mean decreasing rate going ranging 21% to 41%]. On the other hand,there are 11 divisions with a low growth employment rate (S16, S24, S25, S27-S30, S32-S34 and the

S37); oscillating the SMEs employment growth rates from 2% to 9%.

Table 6: Employment evolution (%) across the manufacturing sectors from 1999 to 2007.

Finally, there is one division with a mean growth rate of the SMEs' employment in the order of 134%.That is the S37: Recycling. Looking closer at this division, we may note that the SMEs of severalcountries have a higher growth rate in comparison to the mean value. It is important to point out thefact that two south European countries such as Spain (365%) and Portugal (204%) and two Nordiccountries such as Finland (272%) and Sweden (190%) report the most significant rate in employmentgrowth.

What factors could explain the increase in employment in the manufacturing SMEs?

To answer this question, an analysis of the coefficients of correlation of Pearson is proposed for thevariables that we have been discussing throughout this article. The following table presents theresults of these coefficients.

Table 7: Correlation of Pearson of the average size of the SME with the value-added, the turnoverand the production.

According to the output, the variable that has a higher correlation with the average size of the SME isthe value-added. This finding may be applicable to all countries on the empirical picture. We note thatthe correlation is stronger for SMEs in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden.Moreover, this correlation is less important in countries such as the United Kingdom, France orPortugal.

The results of the correlation coefficient for the value-added or production are not constant acrosscountries; that is, its relevance varies among them. In some countries, both ratios have a highcorrelation on the size of the SMEs; for example, on the firms in countries such as Austria, Denmark,

Finland and Sweden. For other countries, one of these coefficients has a higher impact on the firmsize (i.e. for Belgian and Spanish SMEs, the production is over the turnover). In other nations such as


10/11

10/11

the United Kingdom and Germany, the turnover level has a low correlation with the mean SMEs' size.Paradoxically, for the SMEs of the United Kingdom, the production level has a null correlation withtheir mean size. One possible exit to this issue is the fact that the SMEs and the LEs of the UnitedKingdom show a clear decrease in the employment levels.

6. Conclusions

As a matter of conclusions, the main findings of the present research work are recapitulated.

1) SMEs provide from 48% to 71% of the manufacturing jobs. Where the SMEs from the southEuropean countries contribute 7 of every 10 jobs.

2) The smaller SMEs come from the south European countries as well as from the Nordic ones. Onthe other hand, the Germanic SMEs report the bigger size.

3) There is a coefficient of correlation of Pearson of -0,341; stressing this, a moderate negativecorrelation between the SMEs' size and their share in employment in the overall divisions.

4) The Germanic SMEs not only show a robust size, but also the better value-added.5) During the period 1999-2007, there was net job destruction in the employment of the sector. The

LEs destroy more jobs than the SMEs do. In countries such as the United Kingdom, the LEs

destroy more than 700,000 jobs, in Germany 250,000, and in France 150,000. The SMEs ofcountries such as Spain and Finland create more than 40,000 jobs.

6) The countries that increase the number of SMEs as well as the size of the SMEs' employment areSpain, Sweden and the Netherlands. Most of the number of LEs decreases in firms number aswell as the amount of employments.

7) The division 37: Recuperation showed an employment growth for the SMEs in the order of 134%.8) The coefficients of correlation of Pearson between the SMEs mean size and the value -added

shows a high value correlation. This value reported is more important than those showed by theturnover and the production one.

7. References

Audretsch D.B. (2002), The dynamic role of small firms: Evidence from the U.S., Small BusinessEconomics, Vol. 18, pp. 13-40.Baldwin J.R. (1998), Were small producers the engines of growth in the Canadian manufacturingsector in the 1980s?, Small Business Economics; Vol. 10; pp.349-364.Boccara F. (1998), Emploi: Mythe des PME et ralits des groupes, Economie et statistique, 1998,Vol. 319, No. 1, pp. 137-161.Broersma L. and Gautier P. (1997), Job creation and job destruction by small firms: An empiricalinvestigation for the Dutch manufacturing sector, Small Business Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 211-224.Davis S.J., Haltiwanger J. et Schuh S. (1993), Small business and job creation: Dissecting the mythand reassessing the facts, NBERWorking paperno. 4492, pp. 49.Doi N. and Cowling M. (1998), The evolution of firm size and employment share distribution inJapanese and UK manufacturing: A study of small business presence, Small Business Economics,Vol. 10; pp. 283-292.

European Commission (2003), Official Journal of European Union, L124/36-L124/41, Text C(2003)1422; 2003/361/EC.Johnson P. (1989), Employment change in the small business sector: Evidence from fivemanufacturing industries, Small Business Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 315-323.Lpez-Garca P., Puente S. and Gmez A.L. (2009), Employment generation by small firms inSpain, in Documentos Ocasionales No. 0903, Banco de Espaa, pp. 40.Mouy N. (1998), Les PME de lindustrie: un dynamisme plus apparent que rel, Economie etstatistique, Vol. 319, Num. 1, pp. 179-194.OECD (1996), SMEs: Employment, Innovation and Growth, The Washington Workshop.OECD (2005), SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook, OECD Publishing.Parker R. (2001), The myth of the entrepreneurial economy: Employment and innovation in smallfirms, Work Employment & Society, Vol. 15 (2); pp.239-253.Picot G. and Dupuy R. (1998), Job creation by company size class: The magnitu de, concentration

and persistence of job gains and losses in Canada, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 117-139.


11/11

11/11

Schreyer P. (1996), SMEs and employment creation: Overview of selected quantitative studies inOECD member countries, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 1996/4, OECDPublishing.Storey D.J. (1982), Entrepreneurship and the new firm, Billing and Sons Limited, United Kingdom.Storey D.J. and Johnson S.G. (1990), A review of small business employment data bases in theUnited Kingdom, Small Business Economics, Vol. 2, pp. 279-299.

Wagner J. (1995), Firm size and job creation in Germany, Small Business Economics, Vol. 7, pp.469-474.

Stylised Facts About SMEs_Humberto_LOPEZ-1-2

Documents

Transcript of Stylised Facts About SMEs_Humberto_LOPEZ-1-2